For the large majority of the UK population, comprehensive secondary schools were where most of us spent our youth. By and large, most spent nearly seven years there, using the same old equipment their brothers and sisters had years before them, and that one young uncle who also went to your school did also. But even with the old clichés of a lack of funding, smoking behind the bike sheds and rumours about that one teacher and a student having a different sort of one on one time, comprehensives weren't that bad, and were actually very good.
The reason why I say this is that, in my experience of the comprehensive, good teaching, decent classrooms and a drive to compete with the private school five minutes away, made my school one of the best in the country. Which seemed to work well considering, every year pupils went to Oxbridge and the Russel group, played sports at a national and even International level, and one student won an Oscar after they hung up the charcoal grey trousers and navy blazer. The key to this was competition.
My school wanted to compete with those around it, and in doing so the other comprehensives nearby pushed their own standards up. Pupils were from all sorts of backgrounds, and to me, it showed that grammar schools and privates schools may not be needed if the idea of healthy competition and equal funding was brought about. The Swedish schooling system is based upon something similar with the idea of funding and competition. This isn't a dig at the grammar/private system. But rather a dig at the idea that Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn can dismiss the idea that maybe just maybe, don't give out extra funds for free, ‘making my dad pay for your school meals' but make schools work for that funding. Of course, selective grammars will help to get better overall results, but if the teaching is of the same level in the comprehensive, there is no reason they should not succeed, and with a wider range of people, learning abilities and cultural backgrounds.
Also, one of the main reasons why students do well is to do with teaching. Teachers who want to teach. If a teacher is passionate about a certain subject that will relay into their own work, it's natural. Which helps breed a desire to be a better teacher, and not an entire focus on grades but on becoming more interested in the subject. A better overall understanding of the subject will help later on when looking at more complex issues, mainly because school is definitely not just about passing an exam, but with the idea of students realising the potential they have.
One of the key things about the comprehensive is the idea of the level playing field and the fact many of the students are from just about managing families. Yet, companies like PWC are developing programmes into social mobility, to try and get students from comprehensives. AGR, have reported on this, saying that by tapping into to the talent pools of the comprehensive school system you open up your talent base, which is only for the betterment of the company. Deloitte is adopting blind tests and school leaver programmes to try and get better candidates without prior knowledge of their educational history. Pupils are found to be more self-reliant, possibly due to the fact that, not everything was handed on a plate and facilities were limited. The diverse backgrounds of cultures, disability, and other factors help expose students to different people early on. As a result, these candidates can often do better and may now start to be looked at with more fondness than days gone by. Even the education secretary, Justine Greening has highlighted the importance of social mobility.
So please Theresa May or Jeremy Corbyn, get an actual plan for schools that involves competition and good teaching because old prejudices of rich and poor won't help anyone in the long run.
Sources:
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/justine-greening-education-at-the-core-of-social-mobility
